I think that ultimately the answer is there a very clear one. As funders, fun folks in unrestricted ways, right, fund them, in ways allows them to develop the capacity to drive the work itself, that doesn't lock them into programs that you think of as important, right? So fund. Unrestricted and fun, big. I'm a big proponent of philanthropic inflation, right? We live in a country of people who are billionaires a billion dollars, Americans have no sense of money, or numbers. A billion dollars is 1000. Millions, where people that are worth 20,000 million dollars, and we're arguing over $50,000 grants like are you kidding me? Like your baseline should be a million dollars just on general principle. Right? Right. And so how do we have funders give away more money in a way that's meaningful and powerful? And also, why don't we have funders recognize that if you've amassed a billion dollars, you've probably done some harm to the world? And so how do you use your philanthropy to repair the harm that you've created and amassing a billion dollars? And that's a different way of thinking about philanthropy is almost like, you know, carbon maneuvering, right? But really, how do you think about the role that you must play, and in some ways, healing the world that you've heard in some ways, and amassing that much money, and that's a very different way to think about philanthropy. But I think it's really, it's a meaningful way, for folks who are really driving impact, to really think about it in a personal way that's relative, as a fellow philanthropist in the work itself, so big grants that are unrestricted, over longer periods of time, right? So really, you have to be able to be with folks, if you want people to do great things, you have to be supportive of them. How do you think about being a funder who is a long term funding partner, right? And then engaged in the work? And the answer? There's a wonderful Ted Liu, who's a program officer at Lieber Foundation, says that good funders should think of themselves as taking a ride with their grantees in which they're paying for the gas. Right? And so really, how do you think about the role you have in sticking with grantees over time recognizing the answer may change, and you have to give them the space to do that, and be thoughtful about that as well. And more importantly, and most importantly, particularly, as we talked about this conversation on seeding power, we'd have very often funders who are saying, oh, you know, I want to, I want to fund them in a way that's important. But I don't want to have any, you know, I want to sit back and let this happen. And, and I want to see power completely. You have to be aware of your positionality in the world, right? Your voice matters. So it's a question of Yes, fun them restricted in big ways that gives them a lot of space. But also, how do you use your power and your positionality in the spaces that you have it to make sure that their answers are being shared across the field, and that they have the space to keep doing the work itself. So you have to play advocate for the organizations that you're supporting, because you have to make sure that your positionality your power isn't wasted. Right. And that's where you think about good funding, being a good funding partner, and all those things, you know, with respect to what are the natural ingredients that people have within the space of the working in? How do you, you know, elevate the assets of leaders in the space itself? I think all those things come together just to create really great trust based philanthropy in a way that's very much so impact driven. No one seemed to throw money out the door. Right? You're you're investing in ideas that make sense with people who have the answers, right. When I worked in the private sector, we would spend, we would spend three days interviewing three roles on products, right? Should you launch a product at three Oh, has to be excited about it, right. But the number of programs and practices we put out in underserved communities without ever interviewing the folks in the communities? It's absurd, right? And so how do you make Have you really centered the people who are impacted by the issues to drive the answers based on their assets is important. One final point, which is kind of a loose point. But this comes, and this is actually something I've learned within the work itself. Liz Thompson, who runs the 1954 project, really thoughtful signal funder doing amazing work, equitable funding and education. And named after 1954, of course, Supreme Court decision desegregating schools, which did some good things, but also actually stripped black leaders of leading of Congress of the leadership of the education conversation, because once it was integrated, the black education conversation became led by the white leaders, right, who are responsible now for all those things. She talked about in our project with her the importance of leveraging love, in the work itself. And as I'm a west coasters, I'm all about throwing love into into bridge fan decks, right. But having this come from a Chicago, native carrying out the work was so meaningful, because she talked about how so often the space, we carry out strategy work, we carry out philanthropic work, but the work is missing love. It's impact oriented, whatever that means its efficacy oriented, whatever that means, but it's absent love. But when you send her love in the work itself, and when you actually love the community, that you're trying to uphold the community you're trying to serve the communities you're trying to drive impact with. When you work from a space of love, you work differently, right? You're more efficient than you could ever be. And you also honor the groups that you're working with. And as Liz always says, all that's done in love is done well. Right. And so how do we actually work from a place of love when we carry out the work with these communities? Because we'll get a better answer that's more high impact. And also, that's just more sustainable.